khartford

Fellow Corvette Enthusiasts,

Here is why Ring times are bogus:

1. There are no rules and no one monitors the entries for factory “stock” eg. Tires, tune, weight etc.

2. Some companies use pro drivers

3. Weather is a mitigating factor

4. Run 10 identical models and times will vary wildly

IT IS THE CLASSIC APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON !!!!!!

OnPoint

Except when it's a time the community likes - then it's Gospel.

ShagVette

Umm no kidding they use professional drivers.

Many have already said the numbers are not it.... So, what is it then??

KnightDriveTV

I don't think using Nurburgring is necessarily being viewed as the end-all be-all of performance. Nurburgring has definitely become a standard which has had a lot of variables injected. Regardless Nurburgring has excellent marketing value, and when marketing vehicles to the European market I believe Nurburgring is still very necessary for visibility.

That being said, I believe GM has stepped away from Nurburgring as a means of validation, and is now used more as a means of testing and calibration.

JBHunter

A ZR1 or C8 should be stock to send the Right Message

If I was running a car...I’d use a pro driver or Sabine...a woman with thousands of laps there...

i would have the driver run the Laps on a “good weather day”

I would have the driver run several Laps and report the best time and likely the 2nd best time...your statement about running 10 different cars with 10 different drivers doesn’t add to the accuracy of what The CAR is capable of...
These are my opinions.

Darion

Bogus, I don't think they are bogus just people are to sensitive about needing to finish in the first spot. Some of the cars sent are RIngers, just is what it is. Either its tires ya can't get or running a high octane tune, some of the cars just are not what we get at the dealer. (That GT2RS is filthy, special tires or not) I tend to look at it more like this, they all use pro drivers or at least very experienced talented drivers, i'm neither of those. All the cars will be setup to provide the best outcome at a track setting, not the way I drive my ride on the street for sure. To me, if a car is pushing anywhere around a ~7:10 or better, that car is doing a hell of a job and the driver is way better than me, *****!

Bringing up Ring times in here is like bringing up if Pete Rose belongs in the HOF on sport talk radio! No shortage of opinions on that and not likely many here could even get close to a "validated" time we see online.

PC

warhawkmcdaniel

It shows what the car is capable of in the hands of a good driver.

Suns_PSD

In addition to those problems listed above with benchmarking off 'Ring times is the fact that not only does it not replicate street conditions, but it doesn't even replicate typical track conditions.
For example, lots of 'Ring time is gained in 185mph turns, something even track super stars don't experience at local track days

smithers

Same could be said for most test data. For example it’s well established that Ferrari sends two cars to magazines for testing. One is set up for the acceleration tests while the other is set up for best handling. I’ve even heard a team from Ferrari goes out ahead of time to adjust the cars set up for that specific track before it’s handed over for testing.

Trash

The other issue with track time comparisons is no one factors in DA like drag racing does. If a change in DA can affect a 1/4 mile time by several 1/10ths over a mere 10-15 second pass, how much more so over a 2 to 8 minute run such as at the Ring.

blipit_

Only ring times worth anything are done by Sport Auto. They have done Supertests on many models, including Corvettes. Sport Auto ring times are close to and some not so close to stated factory times. They essentially use cars as they come off the showroom floor.

TXshaggy

Wow, someone’s butthurt about ring times...ummm, ok.

Another day, another crazy thread. Reveal can’t come soon enough.

Dr. ice

Agree. I would say there is much less variance between top pros in the same car on any given track then with poor to average drivers. What would separate the pros times would come down to tenths on a stopwatch vs a calendar needing to be used on the variance between lower end drivers. Would be one stupid *** company to not employ the best driver possible if you had any pride in your cars capability.

Dr. ice

In Track and Field we called it the “losers limp” if you know what I mean! Gotta have a reason why you didn’t win.....right😏

84 4+3

1. Fair. Should be tested either as delivered or as optioned as it could be ordered. No more than what can come stock.

2. I'd want a pro driver, minimize variability between passes.

3. Fair, but you can correct for that too I suppose as said above.

4. With a pro, I'd wager that isn't the case. It's a computer setting up everything for the most part. 10 identically delivered cars should perform almost exactly the same. The standard deviation should show they aren't statistically different.

KnightDriveTV

Sport Auto has proven pretty reliable as well. Generally about 3-5 sec off a pro pace, but yet consistent in terms of what the avg, but capable HPDE guy might experience. Porsche factory drivers will push the limits, but a Sport Auto guy is trying to bring the car home, but also needs to approach his comfort level. If a car is hard to access, in terms of performance at the edge, the car slows down for most guys.

Same with the Motor Trend test that runs them at VIR...good comparison

Quinten33

Ferrari is the only one that really cheats on the tests. One guy from Motor Trend claimed that they were given multiple 458 test cars and that the one used in most handling/braking tests was over 100 lbs lighter than the others. It's been known by all of the auto publications since 2010-2011. It's just not talked about because Ferrari is one of the most popular companies in the world, and no publication wants to risk losing the privilege to make articles about new Ferraris.

BEAR-AvHistory

So what is new? John Z DeLorean gave Car & Driver a ringer GTO 421CI Tri-Power Royal Bobcat in place of the stock 389 Tri-Power engine. Cover feature Article compared the Pontiac GTO to the Ferrari GTO. They even made it look like they were running against each other when the tests were actually conducted at different time in different locations. Old motor-sports saying "If you ain't cheating you ain't trying hard enough"

In the GTO’s first year on the market, 32,450 copies were sold, while for 1965 this number more than doubled, increasing to 75,352 (and jumping to 96,946 for 1966). The so-called “Ringer” GTO had created the exact buzz that Pontiac needed, and the strength of the Car and Driver review helped propel the Pontiac GTO to its iconic muscle car status.

My personal ringer was a Stock 1966 GTO Ram-Air Tri-Power 4MT with a Royal Bobcat kit tucked away inside.




During the Muscle Cars era they magazines were all competing for bragging rights collecting the best times for the tested cars. They were more then happy to turn a blind eye to a ringer.

BTW the admission the GTO was a ringer, already well known by car guys, finally came in 1998 by Jim Wangers the Pontiac advertising guru who got John Z's to OK the engine switch.

vndkshn

Porsche and Nissan are also quite bad about it. Sport Auto in fact won't accept cars direct from them because both have been caught sending ringers.

FinsterforstFan

Tires are a huge factor. New cars come with the latest and greatest tires. Put those same tires on the previous gen (pick your model of car here) and I bet they post much closer numbers.